Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:31 AM -0700 9/8/10, Bob Adler wrote:
>Well, I guess the question is why this would provide a better BW
>image than RGB
>conversion? Not being an engineer, I don't know the answer to that. I do
>know
>that some thought the BW image provided by the M8 with no IR sensor cover
>provided superior BW images, but, even as an owner of an M8, I
>wasn't convinced
>that you could SEE a difference.
>
>BTW Frank, I got the used , 5 year old Aptus 22 (4056 x 5356 or a
>multiplier of
>about 1.2 longest side)) for a pittance; about $3k. Sold for $25k new...
>1,100
>actuations. Works on all V bodies except the 2 series. About the same price
>as next-to-pro-level Nikon or Canon body..
>
>But I'd love to have one :-)
> Bob Adler
>Palo Alto, CA
The B&W back only records luminance info. All the Bayer interpolation
and 'muddying' is gone. From a comparison between two early Kodak 6Mp
digital cameras (I think the B&W one was a 760) the difference was
huge. The B&W camera produced files that had about two stops less
noise, which makes sense because the Bayer filters reduced the actual
sensitivity by about that much and the files had a lot more detail. I
would have guessed that the difference was like the difference
between a 6 and a 20Mp camera. Dynamic range also was improved by
over a stop.
The M8 has a weak IR filter, and no anti-alias filter but it still
has the Bayer filters.
The lack of anti-alias filters results in sharper files, but the two
Kodak cameras mentioned didn't have anti-alias filters either.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com